...AH: but unless and until you achieve this with the public, any attempt by gov't to apply the same principle will be met with much sustained kicking and screaming and protests - by both the public AND the opposition parties - on the scale of 'lose the next election'. Canadian politics is rife with this.

...AH: but unless and until you achieve this with the public, any attempt by gov't to apply the same principle will be met with much sustained kicking and screaming and protests - by both the public AND the opposition parties - on the scale of 'lose the next election'. Canadian politics is rife with this.

"AH"? Are you referring to me?

That was not my intention: I merely meant to say "Ah" as I would if speaking aloud rather than typing. I'll watch that in future. Sorry for causing confusion.

Which makes just about every word after that completely and totally irrelevant here in the real world.

Sorry, but having been a part of academia for many years, I find academics tiresome and pretty much wrong about almost everything out of their mouths.

Debate about theoretical definitions of double dip, or if we are even really in a recession, are academic and do nothing for people trying to put food on their tables.

The big elephant in the room is debt. I think convincing people to stop wanting 'stuff' (phones, cars, houses, whatever) that they cannot afford and to live within their means is a much more important endeavor than academic discussions.

And yes, that should apply to the nation's government as well. The real world is proving once again that Keynes was an idiot.

See, this is what I've been saying for three years now. Asking people to spend money to stimulate the economy is all well and good except when people don't have any money to spend on luxuries (exactly the sort of thing they want you to buy) or they don't have a job with which to earn money. No one likes going into debt, after all.

...AH: but unless and until you achieve this with the public, any attempt by gov't to apply the same principle will be met with much sustained kicking and screaming and protests - by both the public AND the opposition parties - on the scale of 'lose the next election'. Canadian politics is rife with this.

"AH"? Are you referring to me?

That was not my intention: I merely meant to say "Ah" as I would if speaking aloud rather than typing. I'll watch that in future. Sorry for causing confusion.

Robert Hall has an idea of what one looks like but no precise definition. He's chairman of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of academic economists that officially declares the starts and ends of recessions.

They have had members from all over the political spectrum like Milton Freedman and Paul Krugman. But as a student, I know it is important to know an organizations political bias, but this group, academically they may be more balanced in their definitions and research. Then again I don't how much influence the chair person has over the organization.

Economics is more political than most people would think, everyone has their own beliefs as to how resources should be distributed, so it's important to know the source of the research.

And then as stated earlier theres the whole academic vs. other economists.

Robert Hall has an idea of what one looks like but no precise definition. He's chairman of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of academic economists that officially declares the starts and ends of recessions.

They have had members from all over the political spectrum like Milton Freedman and Paul Krugman. But as a student, I know it is important to know an organizations political bias, but this group, academically they may be more balanced in their definitions and research. Then again I don't how much influence the chair person has over the organization.

Economics is more political than most people would think, everyone has their own beliefs as to how resources should be distributed, so it's important to know the source of the research.

And then as stated earlier theres the whole academic vs. other economists.

Let me clarify, you are NOT quoting "Allhallowsday" but the article I've linked.

In my opinion, I think what could help at this time to help create more jobs is if the government gave firms a tax-break for hiring up to a certain amount of positions that would out-set any loss these firms would receive. This of course being a temporary measure. Maybe this had already been done, but I don't know to what extent.

Also I think the tax-break on buying homes should be renewed until national income is up.

End the extra taxes on cigarettes, they're too regressive.

Now isn't a time to raise taxes as we're recovering, though in an uneven manner. There's still too many people unemployed, and if the government were to hire people right now, and say we get back to pre-recession levels then we might end up with too much waste and inefficiencies because it's harder for government to keep costs low. Also it's possible that raising more taxes will lead to more people being out of work. Firms need the money that could be wasted on too much government spending to invest in domestic production.

From article:"Robert Hall has an idea of what one looks like but no precise definition. He's chairman of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of academic economists that officially declares the starts and ends of recessions."

or

Quote from: article

Robert Hall has an idea of what one looks like but no precise definition. He's chairman of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of academic economists that officially declares the starts and ends of recessions.